Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm From: mwm@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: 1986 SUPREME COURT RULING - (nf) Message-ID: <10100052@ea.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Jun-84 19:40:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ea.10100052 Posted: Fri Jun 22 19:40:00 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Jun-84 09:17:35 EDT References: <162@sb6.UUCP> Lines: 55 Nf-ID: #R:sb6:-16200:ea:10100052:000:2785 Nf-From: ea!mwm Jun 22 18:40:00 1984 #R:sb6:-16200:ea:10100052:000:2785 ea!mwm Jun 22 18:40:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / sb6!diy / 11:45 pm Jun 17, 1984 */ > Call it what you want (paranoia, crybaby, etc.) but I keep getting this image > of the return of the signs I used to see when I was growing up in South Carolina > > "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I hate to say this, but most restaurants have this right now. A good example is the oft-seen sign "No shoes, no shirt, no service." Their are other good reasons for refusing service to people; all them are related to the actions that person takes, and none to details like race or sex. > It's 1986, I own a restaurant, and I don't particularly care for white people. > It's ok if they have their own restaurants, I have nothing against them owning > anything, but let them go to their own place. It's MY store, and dammit, if > I don't want to serve them I don't have to. Separate but equal is ok with me. > The government has no right to make me let them in. Same with the apartment > building I own. I just don't want whites to live their, and dammit it's my > apartments so I should run it as I please!!! That's fine, if the law allows it. You get your choice - either prejudiced practices are legal, in which case you can exclude whites from your , *and* blacks can be excluded for their color; or prejudiced practices are illegal, and you have to let whites and blacks into your place of business, bar other good reasons for not letting them in. > So it would not surprise me that a second Reagan term would produce a 1986 > mination suit, that would say "That business/ > real estate group/club doesn't really HAVE to accept/serve people, because > it IS *THEIR* business, and THEY have a right to run it as they please." This brings up an interesting point: why do we pick on businesses, and not consumers? For instance, suppose you live in a neighborhood where a Vietnamese refuge family has set up a small restaurant. Also suppose that the bulk of the people in the neighborhood don't eat at the restaurant because they are prejudiced against Vietnamese. Of course, you have a "valid" reason for not eating there. Now, the Vietnamese family is going to be hurt a lot more by this prejudiced practice than you are by not being allowed into some places. After all, you should have "separate but equal" (silly concept, that) facilities, whereas these Vietnamese are likely to loose their livelyhood (sp?). How should we correct this? The obvious solution is to require people to eat some percentage of their meals out at the Vietnamese restaurant. After all, those who aren't prejudiced would anyway.... Does anyone really think this is reasonable? If so, why? If you don't, how do you justify placing restrictions on a business that you wouldn't place on a person?